I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I'm asking the people who know better than Google.

top 84 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 1 year ago

The word Tankie originates from 1950s British Communist circles. Specifically, it was used by British Communists to derisively describe their comrades who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union.

Images of the Soviet invasion featured a lot of tanks, hence, "Tankie".

After that died down, the term didn't come back into use really, until the 2010s, when leftists on the internet started using it in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was fun to bring back a stupid sounding, incredibly niche, British slang word.

At some point the word breached containment and started to be used by liberals, in a very cavilier sort of way. I've seen people use Tankie to describe anyone from Marxist-Leninists, to Marxists generally, to Leftists generally, weird right-wingers who converted to Russian Orthodoxy, pro-Palestine activists, mods of Lemmy instances someone doesn't like.

Shit, I've seen literal Anarchist get called Tankies.

Basically, it's a meaningless nothing word now, that's a bit like your boomer grandpa who still thinks it's the Red Scare, calling Joe Biden a Commie Pinko.

So don't worry about it too much.

  • source
  • A size of tank, smaller than normal tank, but bigger than tankette.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    OP, what have you unleashed.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I just thought this was where you came to ask questions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    People fed up with the the (false) sin/cos dichotomy and want to get people to use tan more often.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    If I wanted to make a high engagement post I would post something like this. Are there any other controversial, not clearly defined words to ask about?

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Socialism and communism seem to be very misunderstood outside of places like Grad, Hexbear, Lemmy.ml, etc. Some thing social programs are socialism, others think the Marxist conception of communism is incompatible with administration, some think any form of market or private property has to be eradicated for socialism to exist, some think it's about worker/employer relationships, etc. I think it would be a decent idea to form a better understanding.

    For clarity, socialism is best described as a transitional status between capitalism and communism, by which public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy (controls the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working class is in control of the state. This fits cleanly with socialism in practice and with Marxist conceptions of socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (31 children)

    I honestly saw someone use the word, wondered what they actually meant by it, and came here to ask. TBF, I didn't know much about what "here" was, at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (30 children)

    Lemmy is developed by communists, and Reddit banned a bunch of leftist subreddits like r/chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, and r/TheDeprogram. As a consequence, a bunch of communists are on Lemmy by ratio compared to Reddit, though Lemmy.world is defederated and blocks 2/3rds of the major communist instances, so you can't actually see them. They usually are on Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net if you want to see the communist side of Lemmy.

    Lemmy.ml is the dev's testing instance, so that's why a lot of communists are here but also why it's not defederated by Lemmy.world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (30 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (29 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (28 children)

    Shit, my comment got deleted, do you remember what it said? I can't remember. Im sure it was probably something irritating for a communist...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    Complaining about communists like you're trapped in the 1950's

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Dont forget the past, lest youre doomed to repeat it.

    In 1950s everyone learned the horrors of a communist system, and now 70ish years later, those with 1st hand experience are mostly dead.

    I mean, yall confuse me. In your opinion, should we not have fought communism in the 50s?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

    In the 1950s, McCarthyite propagandists were spinning tall-tales and mythmaking about the world's most effective system at rapidly improving living conditions and scientific development. 70ish years later, with the soviet archives (somewhat) opened up, we have much better evidence at just how awful the lies of the US Empire were, which was busy exporting genocide and terrorism worldwide in order to plunder and dominate the world.

    There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out. From genocide against Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, coups in Chile against democratically elected presidents in favor of dictators like Pinochet, brutal trade embargoes against countries like Cuba that dared to implement a more human-focused system, the US Empire was and still remains the most brutal and evil empire in history. Thankfully, imperialism is crumbling and this evil country is nearing its end. Hopefully after it falls, a socialist country can take its place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Im curious, how old are you? And im guessing you have been an American from birth? I'd appreciate it if you would indulge me... not trying to dox you

    Edit: i am 41yo male east coast America

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Not going to state my age. I am a Statesian, yes, that's as far as I'm willing to state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    ... you cant/won't reveal your approximate age?

    No one cares... no one is going to look for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, I won't, not to entertain you. There's no point you could make of any relevance knowing my age anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Im sorry, I really was just curious, not trying to make a point about anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Why? Do you normally ask people what age they are online?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    ...no? You hold certain opinions and I wonder if those are maybe formed more from just life experience of education? I dont know, it hold some sort of relevant value i believe but it isnt that big a deal. I mean 20s 30s 40s 50s? I dont need an exact age anc im not going to judge you by it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I became a communist through working, and life experience. That's all you need to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So fearful... I pray for love life and beauty for ya bro.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Its sentences like this that hurt your argument critically.

    There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out.

    "There's no confusion here" ? You sure about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, I'm sure. Based on what we factually know, the US Empire was a brutal exporter of death and misery while it plundered the world. The soviets were responsible for the largest and most significant improvements in quality of life in history, and supporting liberation struggles world-wide. I'm aware that anti-communists exist, and that anti-communism is the status quo in the US Empire. I'm also aware that that's because of decades of propagandizing and the fact that the US Empire needs imperialism to function.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Im not surprised but its wild how you talk about some of this stuff. You talk literally like an enemy of America. If you could leave and have a decent standard of living in a different country, would you do it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I have family here. I could absolutely have a higher standard of living if I moved to China, for example, but my family is here. I'd rather the US Empire become socialist than move myself, and more and more people agree with me.

    You are on a platform made by communists, there are a bunch of us here. Mostly on instances Lemmy.world censors for you, like Lemmygrad.ml and Hexbear.net.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Im sorry but I have to harp on this statement again.

    There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out.

    I dont think your wrong that there is no confusion, if course America was the good side in the cold war. Russia literally almost started ww3 a few times, but saved by a few good men acting against orders if the russian empire.

    Literally practically all of America would disagree with you? I think professors and scholars would disagree with you. I think historians and theologians would disagree with you.

    Ahhh the reason you see no confusion is because all you hear is the propaganda from one side. Maybe try broadening your intake of information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, the USSR was consistently on the side of disarmament. The US Empire constantly refused disarmament, and was willing to first-strike the USSR, which the USSR never pushed for. The USSR was not an empire either, it did not function by international plunder.

    If your point is that I only hear propaganda from one side, that side is the pro-US Empire side. There's no "communist propaganda" in schooling, work, media, etc. Everything I grew up in and work in is meant to reinforce that status quo.

    If we are comparing the two globally, the USSR was a friend to the global south while the US Empire has friends in the global north, ie imperialist countries in Europe and a handful elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My only point is that your statement that:

    There's no confusion here, the US Empire was the evil side in the Cold War, and evil won out.

    Is just flat out wrong.... there is a tremendous amount of confusion. I can't even get you to understand this one simple point. Ive said it multiple times.

    Good night young man

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm aware that the standard opinion in western countries is pro-imperialist and anti-communist. Among the actual hard data we have, it's irrefutable that socialist countries have been responsible for the greatest improvements in quality of life for the greatest number of people in the shortest timespan possible. It's also irrefutable that the USSR was de-escalationary the entire Cold War while the US Empire was for escalation, considered dropping over a dozen nukes on Korea, etc. These are documented and accessible facts.

    You have no idea how old I am, either, you just wanted to add a condescending jab because I refused to dox myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Whatever... youre fully indoctrinated into your bit. Thats fine. But you can't even just focus on something simple. I have no idea how old you are physically, but I think I understand well how old you are mentally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I'm not "indoctrinated," I disagree with you firmly on something and have done the research and reading into it to make me confident in that. You insult my intelligence for disagreeing with you, while you provide nothing affirming your own point. It's ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hey champ, how are you?

    You're brainwashed and ignorant and politically illiterate. Reading your posts is like hearing the dying gasps of a generation of delusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    When a South Asian calls the British monarchy fascist or Churchill a genocider in my experience.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Isn't monarchy already a bigger bad word in itself than fascism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I actually always wondered a bit about the line between fascism and monarchism. To the casual observer they might seem nearly identical, though I wonder if in historical materialist terms it's a reactionary attempt to backslide to feudalism rather than progress capitalism to socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Like most words it can mean different things depending on context. I’ll do my best to cover a few without spoiling it with my own opinions.

    The most common usage is as a blanket pejorative aimed at anyone who identifies as leftist but also openly endorses authoritarian means or ends.

    There are also those who embrace the term and they are also not all the same. There are Marxist-Leninists who believe the only path to a stateless egalitarian society is through a revolutionary vanguard party. There are also those who argue that egalitarian society can only be achieved and maintained through benevolent authoritarianism.

    In any case, the term carries an implication of authoritarianism and/or revolutionary violence, hence β€œtanks.”

  • source
  • [+] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    It really is adult name calling, and it further polarizes the political spectrum by naming every single fucking mindset and ideology combination you can think of. It's just not constructive at all.

    We need to talk about ideas and issues and how we can understand and compromise for one another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    A lot of these comments reminds me of people posting on conservative chats asking what a socialist is. About the same amount of mouth foaming.

    I would like to remind people about vaccinations against rabies

  • source
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is a memo about Cuba isn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Hungarian Freedom Fighters were Agency sponsored

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Thanks for clarifying. Did a little googling.

    Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federated INC isn't the same thing as Hungarian Freedom Fighters. It seems like they're discussing relations after the revolution. Doesn't prove they weren't CIA sponsored revolutionaries, but the best this proves is after escaping to the US they became associated with the CIA.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Anyone ideologically left of Richard Nixon according to our local blue conservatives.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago*

    Someone who believes people outside of the United States of America are also human beings.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    OP I am glad you asked this because I don’t know. Also based on the horseshit answers you have gotten in this post it seems like no one else does either.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    There are far too many comments that just got removed by the moderator! I asked the question, and while I might not agree with all the replies, I was glad that people felt like it was okay to do so.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    If you want to know about any subject, ask a person that is a proponent of said subject first and then get the harshest criticism second and see how the first holds up. You will find an answer eventually in this hegelian dialectic. E.g. You don't want an anti-feminists explaining feminism to you, without hearing from a feminist first.

    you asked what a "tankie" is in one of the very few places on the internet that is a tankie space/instance. Let them explain to you first. The removed comments are "dronies" (politically confused people that hold the same views as western imperialists and are subject to their hegemony) are outsiders that come from other parts of the fediverse repeating the same talking points you read about everywhere else on the (western) internet. (To stay with the analogy: similar to an anti-feminist saying that feminists hate men, when its not true). Comments get removed here when they are factually wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Factually wrong" might be a bit slippery when it comes to this issue. I get the impression that the term is going through some changes in use (as words tend to do) and some groups might legitimately disagree with each other on the definition. Some of the comments that got removed were not in any way helpful to the conversation, but others seemed to have their own definitions. Now they are deleted, who can say? The last definition standing wins?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You asked with a .world account, meaning you're defederated from 2/3 biggest communist spaces on Lemmy, on Lemmy.ml, the last third. As such, it became quite a mess, because communists are outnumbered by anti-communists if you cut out 2/3s of communists.

    The ones that had their comments removed were picking a definition that does not correspond to reality.

    It's kinda like asking what the word "woke" means. MAGA people are going to give you this elaborate strawman, and others are going to tell you that it's just a pejorative strawman.

    If you want to see all sides, read the wikipedia page for "tankies," first, as it's the liberal understanding. Then compare that to the prolewiki entry for "Tankies," for a communist perspective on it, then read "Tankies" by Nia Frome to get someone to elaborate on how it's actually used today, beyond its origins and the strawman characteristics it holds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    We removed many comments, since its a blanket term used to demonize leftists, like "commie", and carry out anti-communist witch-hunts (the instance you're currently on blocks the major leftist lemmy servers, so we're seeing a lot of witch-hunters).

    Its kinda similar to going to a non-theist forum, and asking, "hey everyone, what's a heathen?" And a lot of the answers then demonize these supposed "heathens".

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The problem here is that "tankie" is just a strawman with ready-made characteristics. In the minds of viewers, a tankie is exactly what McCarthy described, yet also someone who believes that the McCarthyian version of a communist is a good thing. The problem is that this doesn't describe real people. Communists disagree with common western, liberal viewpoints on existing socialist states, and believe them to be unfairly represented in western media. Communists aren't paid trolls, we aren't in it for ego. Many of us are members of communist parties, volunteer in our communities, etc.

    You say these supposed "tankies" identify with crimes against humanity, but that's demonstrably false. I can say that, for example, the idea of the 1930s famine in the USSR being intentional is utter mythology. That doesn't mean I support the famine, it means based on evidence from the opening of the soviet archives, we know that it was a tragedy caused by adverse weather conditions made worse by kulaks destroying grain and livestock as resistance to collectivization, and that food output grew with collectivization. None of that "identifies with" the idea that the famine was intentional and is somehow good.

    Even your points on the Russian Federation are wrong. Nobody thinks they are still socialist, critical support for the Russian Federation lies in the fact that it's forced into trade with socialist countries, resists western imperialism, and has a rising socialist public that wishes to reimplement socialism. The DPRK isn't the dystopian nightmare the west pitches it to be, and we know this by measuring up defector testimonies and comparing them to reporting both internally and externally. China is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy.

    All of this is to say, yourself and others are getting downvoted because you're treating the McCarthyite strawman as if it's a real thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί